HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the TSRTC, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 18.02.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.124 of 2019 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVII Additional Chief Judge, FAC XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 07.02.2019 at about 11:30 hours, while the deceased was going from Secunderabad towards Neredmet, as a passenger in TSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-11X-3624 and when the bus reached near Iskon temple, all of a sudden the driver of the bus has driven it in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brakes due to which the deceased had fallen on the iron rod in the bus and sustained bleeding injury to his forehead. Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for treatment and the duty doctor declared him as brought dead. The claimants have sought a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the driver of the RTC bus was not negligent in causing injuries to the deceased.

5. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:

i) Whether the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? iii) To what relief?

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no evidence was adduced.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.17,21,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the TSRTC.

8. Heard the submissions of Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC. No representation on behalf of the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that there is no negligence of the RTC driver in causing the injuries to the deceased and that the deceased himself failed to take precautions while standing in the bus and thus, prayed to consider the contributory negligence on part of the deceased. He further submitted that there is no proof of income filed by the petitioners and the quantum of compensation granted by the tribunal is very high. He further argued that the children of the deceased are majors and are not dependent on the deceased. Therefore, loss of dependency and consortium need not be awarded to the said petitioners. He therefore, prayed to reduce the quantum of compensation.

10. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether the deceased was negligent in not taking precautions, while travelling in the TSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-11X-3624?

2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

3. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

4. To what relief?

11. POINT NOS.1 & 2:

a) The grievance of the appellant is that the deceased was negligent and his contributory negligence has to be considered. It is further contended that the quantum of compensation granted by the tribunal is very high.

b) The evidence of PW2 clearly shows that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the TSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-11X-3624, as a result of the sudden brake, the petitioner fell on the iron rod in the bus and sustained injury. A perusal of the FIR and charge sheet reveal the same. Hence, considering the evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A1 and Ex.A5/FIR and charge sheet, it is held that there is no contributory negligence of the deceased in the occurrence of accident and that the accident occurred on